Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T08:43:29.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing the Interaction of insecticidal Mists and flying Insects

Part II.—The Production and Behaviour of Kerosene Base insecticidal Spray Mists and their Relation to flying Insects*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. A. L. David
W. A. L. David
Affiliation:
Entomology Department and A.R.C. Unit of Insect Physiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An attempt has been made to assemble the important factors concerned with the atomisation of a kerosene spray and to consider the behaviour of the spray alone, and in its relation with an insect flying through it.

The degree of atomisation attained by the spray gun is dependent upon nozzle design, the spraying pressure, the relative rate of liquid and air flow through the nozzle and such physical properties of the spray fluid as viscosity and surface tension.

All atomisers produce droplets of a variety of sizes which leave the gun with a considerable velocity and are carried along by the air current. At this stage they are at their maximum size and possess their maximum velocity so that the chance of impacting with an insect is great. Later on when the droplets have lost much of their velocity and volume (if they contained a non-volatile insecticide they will have become much more concentrated), they are much less likely to impact. It can thus be seen that a non-toxic carrier can increase apparent toxicity of a spray mist by assisting in the production of the momentum necessary for impaction (David and Bracey, 1944). On the other hand a reduction in the size of the droplet decreases the rate of loss from the air space by precipitation. In connection with evaporation the enormous change in concentration which occurs should be borne in mind. Within a few minutes the smallest droplets will have entirely evaporated, leaving only the non-volatile solute and before this stage is reached the droplet will have become super-saturated. Finally this non-volatile solute will exist as minute nuclei which, when they result from a fairly typical insecticidal formula containing up to say 5 per cent. nonvolatile material, may be so small as to settle only very slowly.

Regarding the response of the insect to the spray mist, it may be said that this depends upon the resistance of the insect and the dose of insecticide picked up. Since the spray mist takes some time to distribute evenly and since it is more easily picked up during or immediately after spraying and by insects in flight, it can be seen that the dose received by individual insects will vary a good deal unless the insects behave identically so that under these conditions there is little correlation between the comparative effect recorded on individuals and their relative innate resistance.

To the above remarks arising out of the theoretical discussion which formed the first part of this paper must be added the following conclusions from the experimental work.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , June 1946 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Burdette, R. C. (1938). Some of the principles governing the production of air floated oil particles and their relation to the toxicity of contact oil sprays to insects.—Bull. N. J. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 632.Google Scholar
David, W. A. L. (1945). Insecticidal sprays and flying insects.—Nature, 155, p. 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, W. A. L. (1946). Factors influencing the interaction of insecticidal mists and flying insects. I. The design of a spray testing chamber and some of its properties.—Bull. ent. Res., 36, p. 373–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
David, W. A. L. & Bracey, P. (1944). Activation of pyrethrins in fly sprays.—Nature, 153, p. 594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, W. E. (1924). Clouds and smokes. 240 pp. Churchill, London.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1939). The visual responses of flying mosquitoes.—Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., (A) 109, pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
Langmuir, I. (1918). The evaporation of small spheres.—Phys. Rev., 12, Ser. 2, pp. 368–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnan, A. (1934). Le vol des insectes. Hermann, Paris.Google Scholar
May, K. R. (1945). The Cascade Impactor. An instrument for sampling coarse aerosols.—J. sci. Instr., 22, no. 10, pp. 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C. A. (1940). A fundamental error in the Peet-Grady method.—Soap, 16, no. 6, pp. III, etc.Google Scholar
Peet, C. H. & Grady, A. G. (1928). Studies in insecticidal activity. I. Testing insecticides against flies.—J. econ. Ent., 21, pp. 612–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. & Hocking, K. S. (1939). An apparatus for testing and comparing the biological action of insecticides in flying insects and a method for sampling the concentration of atomised insecticide.—Ann. appl. Biol., 26, p. 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, H. H. (1931). An insecticidal method for the estimation of kerosene extracts of pyrethrum.—J. econ. Ent., 24, pp. 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, H. H. & Campbell, F. L. (1932). The relative toxicity of rotenone and some related compounds as stomach insecticides.—J. econ. Ent., 25, pp. 142–144.Google Scholar
Twort, C. C., Baker, A. H., Finn, S. R. & Powell, E. O. (1940). The disinfection of closed atmospheres with germicidal aerosols.—J. Hyg., 40, pp. 253–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voss, F. (1914). Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die flugwerkzeuge der Insekten.—Verh. dtsch. zool. Ges., 24, pp. 59–90.Google Scholar
Whytlaw-Gray, R. & Patterson, H. S. (1932). Smoke—a study of aerial disperse systems. 192 pp. Arnold, London.Google Scholar